SpherePay MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what parameters are required for each instrument type, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The description provides parameter requirements but lacks operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured with two clear sentences covering both instrument types. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential parameter requirements. While dense with information, it avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point without unnecessary preamble or explanation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) but with an output schema present, the description provides good parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. For a creation tool with significant parameter complexity, the description should ideally mention more about the operation's nature, potential errors, or relationship to other tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage for 10 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information. It clearly explains which parameters are required for each instrument type, provides format examples (e.g., currency values 'usd' or 'eur'), lists valid network values for wallets, and distinguishes between required and optional parameters. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a funding instrument') and the resource ('for a customer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_bank_account' or 'setup_virtual_account' which have different purposes. It explicitly lists the two instrument types (bank account or crypto wallet), making the scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying requirements for each instrument type, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setup_virtual_account' or 'setup_offloader_wallet'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions beyond the parameter requirements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.